Grandel v. Clarke, No. 3:2013cv00548 - Document 14 (E.D. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 8/7/14. (Mailed to pro se petitioner)(jtho, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division DOMONA T. GRANDEL, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 3:13CV548 HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION Domona T. Grandel, a Virginia state prisoner proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, brings this petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 ("§ 2254 Petition") challenging his conviction in the Circuit Court of the City of Williamsburg and the County of James City, Virginia ("Circuit Court"). In his § 2254 Petition, Grandel argues entitlement to relief based upon the following grounds:1 Claim One: Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by: (a) (b) "accepting] the position of the Commonwealth without developing adequate adversarial conflict" (State Pet. 11); "fail[ing] to inform [Grandel] on self-defense instruction" (id); and, (c) failing to question Investigator Gibbs about the statement of a witness (id. at 11-12). Claim Two: Counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to preserve the argument for appeal that Grandel lacked the requisite intent to commit aggravated malicious wounding. (§ 2254 Pet. 7-9; State Pet. 14-16.) 1 Grandel lists rambling and semi-coherent claims in his § 2254 Petition and indicates that he raised the same claims in his state habeas petition. Respondent agrees that Grandel's "§ 2254 petition is nearly identical" to his state petition. (Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 3, ECF No. 12.) While the claims listed in his § 2254 Petition are not identical to the claims Grandel raised in his state petition, the Court follows Respondent's lead and addresses the claims Grandel raised in the state petition ("State Petition") attached to his § 2254 form. (See State Pet. 3-26, ECF No. 1-1.) The Court employs the pagination assigned by the CM-ECF docketing system for citations to and quotations from the State Petition.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.